HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2022, 9:20 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
It should be noted that the balance of the numbers above (e.g. for DFW 100-75=25) is not Rural, but rather it is the population outside of the primary Urban Area of that Metropolitan Area. DFW also includes the quite populated McKinney-Frisco and Denton-Lewisville Urban Areas as well as a smattering of other smaller Urban Areas.
Correct, the UA/MSA ratio shows how "sharp" the suburban edge of a metro is, i.e. Miami and Las Vegas going instantly to empty wilderness, or the very fuzzy sprawl of a Charlotte or Nashville with disconnected fringe areas.

2,646 urban areas in that report!
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2022, 3:26 AM
Lobotomizer's Avatar
Lobotomizer Lobotomizer is offline
Frontal Lobe Technician
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
It should be noted that the balance of the numbers above (e.g. for DFW 100-75=25) is not Rural, but rather it is the population outside of the primary Urban Area of that Metropolitan Area. DFW also includes the quite populated McKinney-Frisco and Denton-Lewisville Urban Areas as well as a smattering of other smaller Urban Areas.
I took the liberty of adding together all of the urban areas in the 5 county Austin MSA.

Austin (Travis County) - 1,809,888
San Marcos (Hays County) - 70,801
Bastrop (Bastrop County) - 19,384
Manor (Travis County) - 17,006
Taylor (Williamson County) - 15,147
Lockhart (Caldwell County) - 12,886
Hornsby Bend (Travis County) - 11,337
Elgin (Bastrop County) - 10,779
Sonterra (Williamson County) - 9,024
Lago Vista (Travis County) - 8,463
Belterra (Hays County) - 8,075
Luling (Caldwell County) - 5,391

If I didn't make a mistake, that adds up to 1,998,181 out of the total 2,283,371 in the MSA lived in an urban area according to the 2020 census data, which is 87.5%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2022, 3:44 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
I took the liberty of adding together all of the urban areas in the 5 county Austin MSA.

Austin (Travis County) - 1,809,888
San Marcos (Hays County) - 70,801
Bastrop (Bastrop County) - 19,384
Manor (Travis County) - 17,006
Taylor (Williamson County) - 15,147
Lockhart (Caldwell County) - 12,886
Hornsby Bend (Travis County) - 11,337
Elgin (Bastrop County) - 10,779
Sonterra (Williamson County) - 9,024
Lago Vista (Travis County) - 8,463
Belterra (Hays County) - 8,075
Luling (Caldwell County) - 5,391

If I didn't make a mistake, that adds up to 1,998,181 out of the total 2,283,371 in the MSA lived in an urban area according to the 2020 census data, which is 87.5%.
I double checked, and you’re correct. Georgetown no longer has its own UA, and is in the Austin UA, as is Hutto. By 2030, many of these currently separate UAs will be part of the Austin UA.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2022, 2:52 AM
pip's Avatar
pip pip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,531
Urban areas are now measured by housing density instead of population density? What is the difference between urban area and MSA?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2022, 10:46 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip View Post
Urban areas are now measured by housing density instead of population density? What is the difference between urban area and MSA?
Urban Areas are a function of density and Metro Areas are a function of commuting patterns.

Oversimplified, but:

Previously, Urban Areas used population density at the census tract level and now use housing unit density at the census block level. Either is a good approximation of “urban” as both measures will reflect a heavily built environment rather than rural/pastoral environments.

Metropolitan Areas use commuter statistics between counties overlayed on Urban Areas. The counties which contain any part of an Urban Area are known as the “core” counties of that Metropolitan Areas and additional “outlying” counties are added IF 25% of the employed residents of that county commute into one of the “core” counties for work. So, Metropolitan Areas are a broader community that also includes those people who rely on the nearby Urban Area for employment and for services, etc.

Micropolitan Areas are smaller versions of Metropolitan Areas and some of the larger Metropolitan Areas are divided into Metropolitan Divisions (Fort Worth and Dallas, for instance).

Combined Statistical Areas use commuter statistics between Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas. For some collections of these areas, there is enough commuter interchange between them that they function as a loose collection of related entities rather than being relatively disconnected. For instance, San Francisco and San Jose. Personal note: the Census Bureau should rename these Macropolitan Areas.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2023, 4:25 AM
pip's Avatar
pip pip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Urban Areas are a function of density and Metro Areas are a function of commuting patterns.

Oversimplified, but:

Previously, Urban Areas used population density at the census tract level and now use housing unit density at the census block level. Either is a good approximation of “urban” as both measures will reflect a heavily built environment rather than rural/pastoral environments.

Metropolitan Areas use commuter statistics between counties overlayed on Urban Areas. The counties which contain any part of an Urban Area are known as the “core” counties of that Metropolitan Areas and additional “outlying” counties are added IF 25% of the employed residents of that county commute into one of the “core” counties for work. So, Metropolitan Areas are a broader community that also includes those people who rely on the nearby Urban Area for employment and for services, etc.

Micropolitan Areas are smaller versions of Metropolitan Areas and some of the larger Metropolitan Areas are divided into Metropolitan Divisions (Fort Worth and Dallas, for instance).

Combined Statistical Areas use commuter statistics between Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas. For some collections of these areas, there is enough commuter interchange between them that they function as a loose collection of related entities rather than being relatively disconnected. For instance, San Francisco and San Jose. Personal note: the Census Bureau should rename these Macropolitan Areas.
Great summation. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2022, 12:41 AM
3rd&Brown 3rd&Brown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,921
I love the idea of Hudson County consolidating. I also hate the name Jersey City.

Just call it Hudson, NJ. Heck, even I'd consider moving there.

I bet you if a few surrounding towns consolidated into Jersey City eventually all of them would. Maybe one or two of the most affluent towns in the county stay independent but that could also be a thing, lol. Like Southside Place in Houston. An independent town within a city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2022, 4:20 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,377
Census Bureau raises the bar on the definition of ‘urban’ in America''

Mike Schneider
Associated Press
December 29, 2022

More than 1,100 cities, towns and villages in the U.S. lost their status as urban areas on Thursday as the U.S. Census Bureau released a new list of places considered urban based on revised criteria.

Around 4.2 million residents of 1,140 small cities, hamlets, towns and villages that lost their urban designation were bumped into the rural category. The new criteria raised the population threshold to be classified as urban from 2,500 to 5,000 people, and added the number of housing units to the definition.

The change matters because rural and urban areas often qualify for different types of federal funding for transportation, housing, healthcare, education and agriculture. The federal government doesn’t have a standard definition of urban or rural, but the Census Bureau’s definition is often used as a baseline.

“The whole thing about urban and rural is all about money,” said Mary Craigle, bureau chief for Montana’s Research and Information Services. “Places that qualify as urban are eligible for transportation dollars that rural areas aren’t, and then rural areas are eligible for dollars that urban areas are not.”

This year’s change is the Census Bureau’s biggest modification in decades to the definition of an urban area. The bureau adjusts the definition every decade after a census to address any changes or the needs of policymakers and researchers. The bureau says it makes the changes for statistical purposes and has no control over how government agencies use the definitions to distribute funding.

There were 2,646 urban areas in the mainland U.S., Puerto Rico and U.S. islands on the new list released Thursday. Among them were three dozen new urban areas that were rural a decade ago.

“This change in definition is a big deal and a substantial change from the Census Bureau’s longstanding procedures,” said Kenneth Johnson, a senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire. “It has significant implications both for policy and for researchers.”

Under the old criteria, an urbanized area needed to have at least 50,000 residents. An urban cluster was defined as having at least 2,500 people, a threshold that had been around since 1910. Under this definition, almost 81% of the U.S. was considered urban and 19% rural over the last decade.

Under the new definition, hammered out after the 2020 census, the minimum population required for an area to be considered urban doubled to 5,000 people. The Census Bureau had proposed raising the threshold to 10,000 people, but pulled back amid opposition. The new criteria for urban areas shift the urban-rural ratio slightly, to 79.6%-20.4%.

In 1910, a town with 2,500 residents had a lot more goods and services than a town that size does today, “and these new definitions acknowledge that,” said Michael Cline, North Carolina’s state demographer.

With the new criteria, the distinction between an urbanized area and an urban cluster has been eliminated, since the Census Bureau determined there was little difference in economic activities between communities larger and smaller than 50,000 residents.

Of the 50 states, California was the most urban, with 94.2% of its population living in areas meeting the definition. Vermont was the most rural, with almost 65% of its population residing in rural areas.

For the first time, the Census Bureau is adding housing units to the definition of an urban area. A place can be considered urban if it has at least 2,000 housing units, based on the calculation that the average household has 2.5 people.

Among the beneficiaries of using housing instead of people are resort towns in ski or beach destinations, or other places with lots of vacation homes, since they can qualify as urban based on the number of homes instead of the full-time resident population.

“There are many seasonal communities in North Carolina, and this change in definition to housing units may be helpful in acknowledging that these areas are built up with roads, housing, and for at least one part of the year, host many thousands of people,” Cline said.

Housing, instead of population, is also going to be used to calculate density measures of census blocks — the building blocks of urban areas, which typically have several hundred people. The Census Bureau said using housing units instead of population will allow it to track population changes in fast-growing areas in between the once-a-decade censuses.

But there’s another reason for switching to housing units instead of population: the Census Bureau’s controversial new tool for protecting the privacy of participants in its head counts and surveys. The method adds intentional errors to data to obscure the identity of any given participant, and it is most noticeable in the smallest areas, such as census blocks.

“The block-level data aren’t really reliable, and this provides them an opportunity for the density threshold they picked to be on par with the population,” said Eric Guthrie, a senior demographer in the Minnesota State Demographic Center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2022, 2:22 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,991
Nice to see nyc at nearly 6000/psqm unweighted
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2022, 10:12 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,971
I merged all of the multiple threads about the recent census estimates release into this one and cleared out all of the state vs. state trolling.

Please carry on discussing the data.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2022, 11:36 PM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Belton, TX
Posts: 1,183
Urban/Rural populations shift following 2020 census

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2022, 11:37 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,710
Big fan here of municipal consolidation. States should start mandating this, tbh.

I’d go further than the above, and say that all of Hudson and Union, almost all of Essex, most of Bergen, half of Passaic, and Middlesex north of the Raritan should be consolidated into Jersey City.

~3.5 million.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)

Last edited by wwmiv; Dec 30, 2022 at 11:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2022, 11:52 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
they were pretty close in 2020.

newark: 307,220

jersey city: 292,449



NJ is the largest US state without a municipality over 500K.

well, technically, it's GA, but with atlanta registering 498K in 2020, i'm calling that "close enough".


i still think hudson county should consolidate to become NJ's de facto main city.

at 724K, it'd be the 19th largest municipality in the nation, and one of the densest large cities with only 47 sq. miles of land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Big fan here of municipal consolidation. States should start mandating this, tbh.
Absolutely! 12 Mayors, 12 Councils, 12 School Boards, 12 City Administrators, 12 Chiefs of Police, etc... all in 47sq miles. No wonder taxes are so high!! State should pass a law consolidating everything into just one Hudson County. Homerule and other old school Jersey politics needs to be punched in the face.

Bayonne
East Newark
Guttenberg
Harrison
Hoboken
Jersey City
Kearny
North Bergen
Secaucus
Union City
Weehawken
West New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2022, 12:33 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Great State of NJ
Posts: 49,295
^^^^

They should do that also for the suburbs. To many police and fire departments for towns with barely any people. Drives up the costs. Also consolidate some of the schools. Back when I was in NJ, it would annoy me when my town would get a 3 million dollar fire truck to fight airplane fires... the types equipped to fight airplane fires. Ain't a damn airport for miles upon miles, only 2 story homes. Chris's tax dollars to waste. My theory is that those firefighters start fires to stay busy... but that's another topic for another day.

NJ could help the people a lot by curtailing a lot of waste. Some towns should be annexed into others and in the case of very small towns, let the local trooper office (State PD) take over. Will save the residents a lot of money and with the schools too, consolidating some school districts. I-pads for kids too in the schools... maybe go for cheaper options like Samsung, no need to spend a 1000 dollars per kid on a tablet when a cheaper 150 dollar one will do. Tax dollars pissed away. But all said... NJ is a great state at the end of the day. Love it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2022, 4:39 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,509
Summing up Chicago:

Chicago, IL—IN.....8,671,746
Round Lake Beach, IL.....261,835
Kenosha, WI.....125,865
DeKalb, IL....64,736
Valparaiso, IN....51,867
Woodstock, IL.....25,298
Morris, IL.....15,740
Coal City—Braidwood, IL....15,837
Lakes of the Four Seasons, IN....13,113
Twin Lakes, WI—IL.....12,603
Lowell, IN.....10,747
Harvard, IL....9,376
Manhattan, IL....7,826
Marengo, IL....7,509
Elburn, IL.....6,395
Wilmington, IL.....6,388
Wonder Lake, IL....5,758
Hampshire, IL.....5,699
Rensselaer, IN.....5,509
Genoa, IL.....5,484

Sum of 9,329,331 or 97.0% of the MSA.

Round Lake Beach—McHenry—Grayslake, IL—WI is definitely the oddest piece to be separate from the main Chicago UA.

Special mention to Lake Holiday, IL (7,313) just over the line in the corner of LaSalle County.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.

Last edited by ChiSoxRox; Dec 31, 2022 at 4:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2022, 10:35 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,592
The US Census should eliminate those endless contiguous UA, consolidating them. Posts above on Chicago and Los Angeles are telling.

French metro areas (aires urbaines) are akin to US’ UAs and they also have that same problem and in some cases even worse: they have aires urbaines that are enclaves (!!!).
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2022, 5:44 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
The US Census should eliminate those endless contiguous UA, consolidating them. Posts above on Chicago and Los Angeles are telling.
Well, looking at the list of UA's that chisoxrox compiled for Chicago, many of them are not contiguous with the city's UA, and thus they really shouldn't all be consolidated, IMO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
Summing up Chicago:

Chicago, IL—IN.....8,671,746
Round Lake Beach, IL.....261,835
Kenosha, WI.....125,865
DeKalb, IL....64,736
Valparaiso, IN....51,867
Woodstock, IL.....25,298
Morris, IL.....15,740
Coal City—Braidwood, IL....15,837
Lakes of the Four Seasons, IN....13,113
Twin Lakes, WI—IL.....12,603
Lowell, IN.....10,747
Harvard, IL....9,376
Manhattan, IL....7,826
Marengo, IL....7,509
Elburn, IL.....6,395
Wilmington, IL.....6,388
Wonder Lake, IL....5,758
Hampshire, IL.....5,699
Rensselaer, IN.....5,509
Genoa, IL.....5,484

Sum of 9,329,331 or 97.0% of the MSA.

Round Lake Beach—McHenry—Grayslake, IL—WI is definitely the oddest piece to be separate from the main Chicago UA.

The Round Lake UA is probably the best connected to the larger Chicago UA and it could certainly be argued that it should be consolidated.

Others might also argue for Kenosha too, but I like the clean line of the IL/WI border being the limit. Besides, there are too many packers fans up there for it to ever be fully "Chicagoland" anyway.

Dekalb is clearly not contiguous. Nor are Valpo and Woodstock. And most of the others are small little stand alone towns that have not been absorbed by the larger UA. I see no valid argument to consolidate them into the larger Chicago UA.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 31, 2022 at 6:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2022, 8:26 PM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Well, looking at the list of UA's that chisoxrox compiled for Chicago, many of them are not contiguous with the city's UA, and thus they really shouldn't all be consolidated, IMO.





The Round Lake UA is probably the best connected to the larger Chicago UA and it could certainly be argued that it should be consolidated.

Others might also argue for Kenosha too, but I like the clean line of the IL/WI border being the limit. Besides, there are too many packers fans up there for it to ever be fully "Chicagoland" anyway.

Dekalb is clearly not contiguous. Nor are Valpo and Woodstock. And most of the others are small little stand alone towns that have not been absorbed by the larger UA. I see no valid argument to consolidate them into the larger Chicago UA.
Isn't Woodstock right past Harvard, IL? And doesn't the suburban rail service have a stop in Harvard IL (I think it is the last stop). Motorola even built a huge cell phone plant in Harvard but it did not stay open long.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2022, 11:21 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
Isn't Woodstock right past Harvard, IL? And doesn't the suburban rail service have a stop in Harvard IL (I think it is the last stop).
You got 'em reversed.

Harvard is about 10 miles further out from Woodstock, and it's the end of the line stop for Metra's UP-NW service
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 1, 2023, 10:57 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Well, looking at the list of UA's that chisoxrox compiled for Chicago, many of them are not contiguous with the city's UA, and thus they really shouldn't all be consolidated, IMO.





The Round Lake UA is probably the best connected to the larger Chicago UA and it could certainly be argued that it should be consolidated.

Others might also argue for Kenosha too, but I like the clean line of the IL/WI border being the limit. Besides, there are too many packers fans up there for it to ever be fully "Chicagoland" anyway.

Dekalb is clearly not contiguous. Nor are Valpo and Woodstock. And most of the others are small little stand alone towns that have not been absorbed by the larger UA. I see no valid argument to consolidate them into the larger Chicago UA.
Either way, the criticism stands: they have no intention to consolidate anyone, including this Round Lake, almost as large as all the other put together. Or Los Angeles and San Bernardino, San Francisco and San Jose or New York and Bridgeport. There is also one in Detroit that whose name I forgot.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:44 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.